Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I’d Vote for Hillary Before Trump
I just made this point in the comments, then realized I should make it explicitly. I know we have Trump supporters on Ricochet. We also have people who think that he’s not their first choice, but might not be a total disaster. I’ve made it clear that I think he’d be an unparalleled disaster, but perhaps haven’t made my argument as clearly as I could.
So I’ll give it my best. I have more arguments where this came from, but to me, this is definitive.
The moment that most clearly demonstrates that he’s nuts — and nuts in a way different in kind from any previous president in the nuclear era and from any of the other candidates for the presidency — was when he said George W. Bush knowingly misled the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”
It’s not absolutely clear who “they” are in this sentence, but by any plausible, common-sense reading, he means George W. Bush and his administration.
The assertion that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to having been wrong about it, is extremely implausible and requires a belief in hundreds of conspirators, not just George W. Bush. It’s so implausible that it qualifies, to my mind, as a clinically paranoiac belief. People who hold this kind of belief tend to be people who’d also believe aliens abducted them and probed their orifices with laser beams. They are not capable of forming reasonable judgments about serious things.
It’s not clear to me whether Trump truly believes George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people about the Iraq war. But if so, how does his mental universe work? What, in his view, motivated Bush and those around him to do this? How does he account for the most obvious objection to this theory, namely, that any administration prepared to go to war on premises they knew to be false would have had both the disposition and the motivation to plant the weapons they had told the world would be found?
What does he imagine motivated all of Bush’s intimates, as well as the House and Senate, to lie like that, but fail to cover up the lie? Why does he think no one has since come forward to offer evidence of this conspiracy? Why does he discount all the evidence that this was a catastrophic intelligence failure?
If he said this cynically, knowing it makes no sense, it’s a different order of malice than a standard political lie or exaggeration. If he believes it, it suggests mental disorder (I use the word “disorder” deliberately — as in, “not orderly, not logical”) of a more disturbing kind than any previous holder of that office in the nuclear era. Not just degree, but kind.
I have many other objections to him, but I think this one is — as George Tenet might say — a slam dunk.* You can’t put people who believe things like that in the White House. It’s too dangerous.
*I also think Tenet’s ultimately responsible for the worst intelligence failure in American history, but that’s another story.
Published in Foreign Policy
No, a whole pattern of comments and behaviors. And, honestly, because I suspect he’s very easily influenced and naive, Putin is emphatically not, and Melania’s a Slav. (So was Ivana for that matter. He’s a Slavophile. As are most red-blooded men, when it comes to Slavic fashion models. But he seems more than just clueless about Putin. He seems to have some ideological sympathy for him, too, and an unusual willingness to parrot Putinist propaganda.)
All of which still pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s accomplished pro-Putin record as SoS.
This is the comparison we have to keep in mind. Hillary is to be trusted completely — she’s going to damage this country if she gets in. It’s a certainty and it comes from a deeply evil set of principles.
But his ruminations, sketchy as they are, are always unique and counter to conventional wisdom. You can make a case for many of Putin’s actions. (Getting back control of the Crimea, especially.) You can find grounds to wrinkle your forehead regarding McCain’s character: (“Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. “McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man,” Dramesi says today. “But he’s still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in.””)
And what Republican has courage enough to publicly assess Bush got overextended in Iraq, much to our detriment?
I like the instinct behind the use of “pro-Soviet.” At least we agree that we’re still dealing the same hungry animal, although I think “Putinist” is the ideology we’re dealing with; it’s a real ideology and a huge threat to what’s left of liberal democracy, and it’s possible that by now she grasps this.
I think there’s a non-zero chance, at this point, that she’s aware that thing is establishing its hegemony its over the Eurasian land mass, and how, and that this is bad. I sure don’t have confidence that she realizes this, but I think it’s possible, or at least that she might believe advisors who tell her so.
I think Trump literally doesn’t know this and believes Putin’s his friend. His buddy. That he and Putin understand each other, mano-a-mano, soul-to-soul, and that Putin’s basically right about how to run things and a good guy.
Of course you can. In fact, if you go back and read Kennan’s long telegram, you’ll be astonished how familiar it all sounds. That one can make a case for it doesn’t mean one should.
See now you are getting into the area that is less analysis than, how to put this [im]politely, ‘women’s intuition’. You may be very correct in your assessment, but the ‘facts’ you cite above don’t add up to your conclusion without adding some extra ‘special sauce’. Which the rest of us don’t know the recipe for.
Putin fools a lot of Western leaders. What did GWBush say after meeting him? Yes, Trump would need his advisors badly in many areas, this certainly being one.
Saw into his soul …
Other than some expressions of concern regarding his temperament and tendency toward bully rhetoric which I see, Trump has a number of positions I support. I like him that he is not a globalist but is for America’s sovereignty as a nation standing for western civilization values. I suspect he would find ways to use strength in the commercial market place to deter Russian aggressiveness before military actions and we have many non-nuclear options available militarily. And I think he is very serious about combating international jihad by Islamic radicals using all available options. He has not shown himself to be a small government conservative but he is certainly not a leftist of the Clinton or Sanders ilk. He may well draw a big swath of voters from the center, including voters who do not spend all their free time contemplating politics, i.e. those enthralled by entertaining modern technology and are ‘the low-information voters’ we spend much time disparaging. We also need to remember that Congress has a role to play in limiting irresponsible Executive Branch behavior and in approving cabinet level appointments in addition to Supreme Court justices. Trump as President would give them a chance to restore their offices to respectability. I’m not voting for Hillary.
Misquotes? He used those exact words. He said that Mexico is “sending” the people they don’t want. He might have meant it differently, but that’s what he said.
Meanwhile, yesterday he threatened to rewrite the libel laws to make it more difficult for newspapers to criticize him. Are we already on our way to electing our own Hugo Chavez?
And why could this ‘exact’ quote not be considered to identify a specific subset of those Mexico is pleased to be rid of but not include all those not of this class who are seeking a better opportunity in the U.S.?
I find them to be counter to wisdom full stop.
You can also make a case for Putin to take back control of Ukraine and the Baltics. This is a power grab, nothing more, and Obama is helpless to stop it. What will Trump do? Does he instill confidence that he’ll stand up to Putin?
But not to disparage all POWs. If there is one aspect of McCain that is admirable it is his truly remarkable service as a POW. Trump’s claim to know more about the military because he went to military school makes him sound like a moron. How dare this draft dodger with fake bone spurs demean the men who served and suffered?
If he believes Bush got overextended in Iraq, then he should say that. There are many legitimate criticisms of Bush’s execution of the war. But Trump said Bush lied, and that is wholly different. A man who doesn’t see that difference is an idiot, an ignoramus, or a liar. He assassinated Bush’s character for political gain.
When did the President start writing laws?
Why, when President Trump was sworn in, the very next day. Didn’t you hear about how his sister and Justice Alito signed the same bill? He said that at the last debate.
Do you think Trump knows even a little about separation of powers, or cares?
Look, if Trump were elected POTUS as Republican, there would be a Republican Congress, and that Congress would have to stand up. This could be the best opportunity we have for that to happen.
Look how far Obama was able to push the envelope of presidential power with a Republican Congress. Obama at least seemed to care a little for the appearance of legality, if not its reality. I fully expect Trump to push much, much further.
First test: Congress won’t fund his wall.
Second test: Congress won’t impose tariffs on China.
Third test: The Senate rejects his appointment of Chris Christie to the Supreme Court.
This all sounds so amusing. Wait till these things, or others like them, happen, and President Trump finds that he doesn’t like being told he can’t do whatever he wants.
I wouldn’t be shocked if he started a major war so that he could use the crisis to justify emergency executive powers.
Am I paranoid? Well, I watch this man and I try to judge his character, and this is what I see.
But will he “have more flexibility”?
Just me talking here, Sir, but yes I do think you are being a bit paranoid. But I agree Trump’s utterances can fuel that feeling if one elects to take a worst case view of his person. Would like to hear what those who have dealt with him for years think. That would help resolve a lot of your questions, one way or the other.
For starters, is there evidence that Mexico, the country, i.e, the government, is sending anyone here, as opposed to people going north of their own free will? Does it make a difference to what our policy on these immigrants should be that they are either being sent here according to a Mexican plan, or that they are coming for their own reasons? Should a president know the difference?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Manfred Arcane: Because he makes one, off-the-cuff remark about Putin that was mildly favorable? That’s a pretty slim reed to build the foundation of your argument on, Ms. B.
No, a whole pattern of comments and behaviors. And, honestly, because I suspect he’s very easily influenced and naive, Putin is emphatically not, and Melania’s a Slav. (So was Ivana for that matter. He’s a Slavophile. As are most red-blooded men, when it comes to Slavic fashion models. But he seems more than just clueless about Putin. He seems to have some ideological sympathy for him, too, and an unusual willingness to parrot Putinist propaganda.)
Re Clinton and Putin, you realize Putin almost certainly has EVERY SINGLE email that ever passed through her server? How much of a security/ blackmail threat do you suppose that makes Clinton? And not just Putin, the Norks, Chicoms, Iranians, etc etc etc etc. Any sympathy Trump MAY have pales in comparison.
It might be an opportunity to re-establish the principle that it takes Congress to declare a war (and to fund it).
MA, could I possibly convince you to edit the admittedly [im]polite angle from this? You’ve been down this road before, and I was quite pleased to see you off of it for months. I think it adds nothing, and is merely a form of name-calling and dismissal, which you seem to acknowledge. So how about it? For me?
And now so did you: “Mexicans are mostly murderers and rapists”.
But that’s not what you meant and we both know it. Your selectivity rises to the level of dishonesty.
I quoted him accurately. Your argument is with my interpretation. I think he meant it the way I took it. So did a lot of other people.
Then you won’t mind my interpretation.
[Editors’ note: Personal attacks on other members of Ricochet are a violation of our Code of Conduct.]
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/27/must-listen-stephen-miller-makes-case-against-marco-rubio-in-epic-rant/